Subcommittee Chair:

Kristin Jones |  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it , 301-572-0896

Subcommittee Members: 

Clinton Anderson, Greg DuRoss, Timothy Elig, Jan Fetter-Degges, Marc Ford, Jeffrey Franke, Doug Hansen, Jean Holman, Matt Jarvis, Timothy Johnson, Kristin Jones, Phillip Kronstein, Brad Latham, Hardee Mahoney, Kevin Montgomery, David Park, Jason Rios, Jean-Luc Santos-Sansfaute, Stephen Schembs, Robert Sheavly, Amy Whitford, Gregory Zitterkob, and Emil Zuberbueler

Topics Addressed at Last Meeting on June 16th:

The meeting was attended by Jan F-D, Kristin J., Jean-Luc S-S. and Doug H. Guest included Betty Stacey, Tim Beacom, and Nate West. Betty, who is not currently attending, was a member of St. Thomas’ since before the fire and has contributed greatly in the park. She was our parish archivist; Tim is the current archivist. Our first topic was: Honoring the heritage of the church. Betty and Tim provided input on the history of St. Thomas’ and previous attempts to envision an expanded space.

Betty described the old church as one long room, with everything focused on the altar, the representation of “the Eminent God” (e.g. you are nothing; God is all). Indeed, the old church façade had large windows allowing people who were walking or driving by to see all the way up to the altar. After the fire, neighborhood residents commented on missing this view and presence. When the church burned, Henry Breul (then Rector), rearranged the furniture to better express the congregation gathering to worship: “collecting together,” which was a decidedly new approach for the parish. Some long-time parishioners even complained about not having any pillars to hide behind. The choir stalls were on the side, as was the organ, all secondary to the focus on the altar. Betty also pointed out a subtle difference in liturgies: Rite I being “I believe.” And Rite II being “we believe.”

Tim commented that we are in a very stripped down, minimalistic space. For this congregation, elaborate design and/or decoration would feel very radical. Tim confessed he is not a fan of the “big box,” and commented that we can come up with a more attractive space. In addition, he pointed out that a space devoid of decorative elements provides an environment with no distractions, but it can make the space feel cold. Artwork can make the space “warmer.” A vaulted ceiling was also mentioned, as an alternative to the “shoebox.”

Tim reviewed files from the ‘70s and ‘80s. In the ‘70s there was a planning committee (about 1973-79). They focused on structural issues, such as waterproofing the Guild Hall building and stabilizing the altar ruins. The water problems included what was left after the church demolition, including old wood and porous walls. The false wall that runs between the ruins and the Guild Hall building was constructed at this time.

In 1985 there was an architectural planning process for a new entry to St. Thomas, rising from the park up to the current worship space. Designs were provided by the firm Darrel Downing Rippeteau Architects, P.C. The project was approved but never carried out, based on cost. Betty commented that the entrance plan was grandiose, including a long set of steps bordered by water flowing down each side representing the river Jordan. Tim provided views of the proposed entrance. The focus of this plan was the presentation of the church to the community. The designs added no functional space.

The third planning process we discussed was the Phoenix Rising project. We have no copies, but this effort centered on finances and whether or not the parish could afford to rise from the ashes. To our knowledge, this did not include any design work. Betty informed us that at the time of the fire, St. Thomas’ was outspending income. This was due in part to inaccurate parish rolls, which showed 500 parishioners at a time when there were really only about 200 active members.

Nate provided input on using technology in worship space. He recommended category 6 wiring (with Ethernet plugs) and coaxial wiring throughout the building. The Communications subcommittee has also recommended Wi-Fi. Mike Mattmiller does this for a living and was recommended as a technical consultant. Nate used to attend a church of 5,000 members. He described doing live recording and sound mixing which can be piped into rooms such as the Nursery and/or uploaded to the Internet. Jean-Luc commented that even going lower tech, you can mike the celebrants or the podium.

The Communications subcommittee also recommended adding assistive devices, e.g. for the hearing impaired. Nate said wireless headsets can be used to receive a base frequency we broadcast out. He recommended celebrants wear wireless lavaliere mikes. Committee members agreed that it is sometimes hard to hear all the celebrants. Nate commented on challenges to providing good sound amplification, including: uneven sound in different parts of the space, “glossed” organ sound, creating echoes. Characteristics such as placement of speakers and speed of sound propagation create these effects. Ideally, you would have a live sound engineer controlling and balancing the audio. The sound engineer ensures that wherever the audio is sent (the Internet, the crying room, etc.) it goes out balanced and high quality.

Currently, we are not recording our sermons. We have some wireless mikes, a receiver and a wireless amplifier. The parish has discussed adding a computer. Other technology augmentation we can consider for the future include large screens in the worship space to display the bulletin, readings, music, announcements and prayers during the services. Committee members commented that we need to provide accessibility, but we also need to balance technology with the sacred nature of the space.

We reviewed input from the Pastoral Care subcommittee, which included the need for a side altar or chapel, possibly with a separate entrance “so people will not feel as exposed as they must now when they come to seek healing prayer.” The subcommittee also requested space for private prayer and/or spiritual direction one-on-one.

Doug commented that we need to provide humidity control for the organ, etc. and suggested taking this requirement into account in considering new organ designs.

The group discussed doing site visits to parishes in the greater DC area that have features of interest, including worship in the round, expandable worship space, or recent renovations to worship space and/or organ. A list of churches to consider was provided and subcommittee members have been asked to select a church and do a site visit in the next week.

Next Meeting:

Monday, June 23, 7:00-8:30, St. Thomas’ Upper Room

Agenda: Subcommittee members have been asked to participate in site visits to churches in the DC area that demonstrate worship-in-the-round, innovative or inspiring space, or recent renovations. Site visit reports will be shared. In addition, we will discuss: green building practices, worship space utilization and accessibility. The subcommittee will begin to review our final report draft and identify any gaps to be covered.

Parishioners Feedback Needed: We need your help! Would you like to visit a parish in the area and describe features of interest? We are doing a lighting round of site visits. Please give us a hand! E-mail Kristin Jones at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it and let us know which parish you will visit.